Archived: The Fremantle Trust - 3 The Glade

Updated 15 August 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 28 June 2017 and calls to relatives were made on 18 July 2017.The inspection was unannounced and was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We checked the information we held about this service and the service provider. We also contacted the Local Authority. No concerns had been raised and the service met the regulations we inspected against at the last inspection which took place in July 2015.

During our inspection we observed how staff interacted with people who used the service. Some people who used the service were non-verbal but were able to make their responses known via pictures or gestures.

We spoke with five people who used the service and two relatives of people who used the service. We also spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager and three support workers.

We reviewed three people’s care records, three medication records, four staff files and records relating to the management of the service, such as quality audits.

Updated 15 August 2017

The Fremantle Trust – 3 The Glade is a service registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to eight people who have a learning disability. On the day of the inspection eight people were using the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them.

People had risk assessments in place which enabled them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.

There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed. Staff received a comprehensive induction and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care and support based on current best practice when supporting people. They were supported with regular supervisions.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.

People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required to enable people to access a balanced diet. There was access to drinks and snacks throughout the day.

People were supported to access a variety of health professional when required, including opticians, doctors and hospital appointments to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities of their choice.

People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place and accessible to all.

Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.